US supreme court rules employers cannot discriminate against LGBTQ+ workers
By: Dominic Rushe
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The supreme court has ruled that a landmark 1964 civil rights law protects gay and transgender workers from discrimination in a historic victory for the LGBTQ+ community.
The six-to-three verdict is the biggest victory for LGBTQ+ rights since the court upheld marriage equality in 2015 and for the first time extends federal workplace protections to LGBTQ+ workers nationwide.
The case concerned whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars employment discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and sex, also covered LGBTQ+ workers.
“Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids,” justice Neil Gorsuch wrote.
The three cases the court heard, Altitude Express Inc v Zarda , Bostock v Clayton county , and R G & G R Harris Funeral Homes v EEOC concerned whether or not a federal ban on sex discrimination forbids employment discrimination against LGBTQ+ workers.
The Harris Funeral Homes case centered on Aimee Stephens , a trans woman fired after her boss claimed it would violate “ God’s commands ” if he allowed her “to deny [her] sex while acting as a representative of [the] organization.”.
Stephens’ case was the first trans rights case to come before the supreme court and came at a time when attacks on trans people have spiked and the federal government and conservative states have moved to erode the rights of trans people.
Donald Zarda and Gerald Bostock, both gay men, alleged they were fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation.
Zarda, a skydiving instructor, lost his job after revealing to a female client he was gay ahead of a tandem jump – he had thought the disclosure would make her more comfortable with their close physical contact.
Bostock, an award-winning child social services coordinator, was fired from his job as in Georgia after his boss discovered he had joined a gay softball league.
Before the ruling job discrimination against gay and transgender workers was still legal in much of the nation. Some 29 states currently allow some form of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodation.
Under the Trump administration many conservative state legislatures have advanced bills that target the rights of transgender people in particular. On Friday the Trump administration rolled back Obama-era healthcare protections for transgender Americans.
The defendants in the cases have been supported by a cohort of rightwing groups including the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) , a conservative Christian group.
After the ruling ADF tweeted: “Redefining sex discrimination will cause problems in employment law, reduce bodily-privacy protections for everyone, and erode equal opportunities for women and girls, among many other consequences.”
Objecting to the ruling justice Samuel Alito called the decision “breathtaking” in its arrogance and an “illogical” misreading of Title VII. “In 1964, ordinary Americans reading the text of Title VII would not have dreamed that discrimination because of sex meant discrimination because of sexual orientation, much less gender identity,” he wrote.
Both Stephens and Zarda died before the verdict. Speaking to the Guardian last September, Stephens said: “In my own mind I have to wonder are these people even awake. Trans people have been around, Lord knows, for hundreds, thousands of years and we’ve interacted with them all the time and we haven’t had problems. So why are we dreaming up problems now that don’t exist?”
Jay Kaplan, Stephens’ lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, said losing her job had been devastating for Stephens. “Her job was so important to her. It was her calling and her purpose in life and when it was taken away it was devastating,” he said. “Being in this case was so meaningful to her.”
Tags
Who is online
78 visitors
A blow to the bigots.
Alito can kiss my ass.
wonder if this makes Trump gay...
Would any gay man in his right mind and not blind want to tap that...ewwww.
I agree that congress should have done it yet when donald is trying to roll back protections and the republican run senate would not take it up because of their base, what other recourse is there.
Like so many issues where the fix really belongs in Congress, this issue has been around longer than Trump has been the president. The real problem here is Congress and it should have been fixed there.
So you openly admit that you are in favor of the SCOTUS legislating from the bench?
In this case, however, they were not legislating. Progressives can thank Representative Howard Smith, a Virginia segregationist, who when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was being written, stood up and proposed a change: In addition to prohibiting discrimination based on race, creed and religion, the bill should also cover sex. It passed that way, and therefore there was always the open door for sexual orientation.
Now it's official: Gays have all the rights the rest of have, including this special right.
Exactly....We have democrat leaders in Congress that have had their positions for decades, in many cases, democrats owned all three branches of government.
Why didn't they make their move sooner, especially in the 80s, when the LGBT community first became highlighted?
I guess it's much easier to promise minorities in your party many different things, including "change", than it is to actually take action on those words.
they never thought she would lose....
now they are trying everything and anything, including burning the kitchen sink and the house it is in
all they have in their future now is fail, fail, and more fail.
What special right do they have exactly?
From the Opinion:
Where do you come up with this?
I actually hate to break the news to you but judges legislate from the bench all the time. Be it between two litigants, a civil case, a criminal case, deciding whether law can stand or not, etc.
By the way, the only people that call it 'special rights' are the people against having equal rights.
You were saying?
Nailed it.
Democrats had control of the House and Senate for many years after the ENDA act was first passed by a Democrat House in 1992. This act covered gender identity. At the same time, the Senate was controlled by Democrats. Why didn't it get passed then?
Since then, they had control of the House and Senate for 8 years, especially the first couple of years of the Obama admin when they had all 3 branches of government and a super majority.
Why didn't they get this through then?
It's an easy answer. Politics. Democrats wanted to put Republicans on the hook with this, knowing they would not support it.
Face it. Democrats don't give one rat's ass about the LGBTQ community, nor do they care about minority communities. They woo them into the party for one reason and one reason only. Votes.
If Schumer and Pelosi really wanted this passed, they should have had it done any of the almost 100 years combined in the Senate they have been members of.
No....not really. Missed by a mile.
Bullshit. The Dems never really had a super majority.
Trying to blame Democrats won't fly.
Not even a little.
Who cares what your definition of a super majority is. The point is democrats had control of all three branches of government more than once since the bil was introduced in 1994. When it was introduced, not only did they have both houses, they had the Presidency, via Slick Willie.
Why didn't it pass then. Why didn't the same happen when they had all three branches the first couple of years of Obama.
The only reason why the house passed it last year was because of Trump, no other reason.
Again...
Face it. Democrats don't give one rat's ass about the LGBTQ community, nor do they care about minority communities. They woo them into the party for one reason and one reason only. Votes. Then they forget all about them until 4 years later, when it is wash, rinse, repeat.
If Schumer and Pelosi really wanted this passed, they should have had it done any of the almost 100 years combined in the Senate they have been members of.
Nope....waaaaaaaaayyyyyyy off.
It is not my definition, it is fact. Seems to be hard for some to grasp.
There are many reasons the bills didn't pass over the years. Some explained above.
The only thing you have shown is your opinion, which is not fact of anything.
They had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and controlled the House and Presidency. They could pass whatever bill they wanted and the Republican were powerless to stop them. If a bill didn't pass, it was because Democrats objected.
The fact is democrats had a filibuster proof majority during the Obama regime. You can't change that fact.
The fact is democrats had majorities in both houses and the presidency more than once since 1994, and they did nothing.
The fact is democrats only passed it recently because one word...Trump.
The fact is no matter what democrats attempt, Trump will be YOUR president for the next 5 years.
Grasp that!!!
I know one thing is for sure....
If I were a member of a minority group and democrats promised change to me every 4 years for decades, and I continue to live in the same condition I did decades ago, I would have learned my lesson and not be stupid to continue to vote for democrats.
Of course, democrats would think I am too stupid to get an ID to vote in the first place.
As I said, the Democrats did have a filibuster proof majority in Congress and yet, somehow, it's "Republicans fault!" I guess Republicans can never be blamed for anything, since they haven't had a veto proof majority in living memory.
Look at the legislation Roosevelt passed in 100 days. Democrats, had they actually wanted to, could have done whatever they wanted and all they actually accomplished was a monstrosity of a health care bill they already want to replace.
He was for the first 50 years.
I do believe Trump is the beginning of the reversal. Blacks see that democrats have done nothing for them for any of those 50 years.
Too bad it took them this long to realize it.
I think someone that wants to argue bullshit must just be upset by this ruling...
I have shown the timeline above. They only had this 'majority' for several months at most. Even Byrd was wheeled in in a wheelchair for a vote. Not exactly an active participant.
The only other time one could call a supermajority was in 1970.
A majority is not a supermajority.
Again, bullshit. If you think they only passed it because of donald. I have showed where this particular bill has been in the works since 2015.
I can make platitudes too and say the republican party has done nothing for the community and in fact is filled with nothing but bigots...
I am done with this derail that is only a forum for you to cast aversions on your political enemies.
And republicans could have joined and help pass legislation, yet they didn't.
I am not going to play this what if, would have, could have bullshit.
If you don't like the ruling tough shit.
The special right to say the reason I got fired was because I was gay and now I shall file a lawsuit! Do you think there are gays who get fired for some other reason other than their sexual orientation?
Why would you post me part of the opinion after I already posted my agreement with the decision???
They do far too often. I am well aware that there are two Constitutions - the living breathing one and the REAL one.
By the way, the only people that call it 'special rights' are the people against having equal rights.
I beg to differ. I don't think you know what equality means.
And I don't think you like this ruling so trying to find ways to make it void.
This is really getting weird, but here it is:
Equality - 1. the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities (The Oxford Dictionary)
So, for example, if Starbucks says they have a "no-loitering" policy and the police are summoned because 3 men are hanging around without making a purchase, then it turns out the 3 men are black and the media makes it a front page story. The manager who called them has her identity revealed.The police apologize & leave. The CEO of Starbucks ends the "no-loitering policy" and re-educates all the managers. That is not equality!!! In case you don't know that is special rights for what Eric Holder once called "protected groups."
I'm sure you would prefer to argue it that way, but you are wrong. As I said, the word "sex" in the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the 'open door" for this decision. There was a logical reason for the decision.
Then what is the problem?
I don't really have one. I made my contribution early this morning. I thought that was my two cents for this piece. A little while ago I see that there are 3 angry posts. I'm just responding now to them.
OK, fine...a majority, not a super majority, but do you really think 43 republicans would be able to garner support for a veto? Hell, no. Anyone in the democratic party that went against the grain would be labeled as racist.
As far as the seed is concerned....I really don't care about the ruling. I don't associate with trans, may never. So to say that I am arguing the seed is , in your words, bullshit, is in fact, bullshit.
I, unlike most liberals, do not look at my political opposites as the "enemy".
My argument is that democrats had several chances since 1994 to pass this bill legislatively when they controlled all three branches of government.. They use Trump as an opportunity for political points because their hatred for him far outweighs anything else happening on this country..
That cannot be argued.
The way both parties have gotten to the point they vote lockstep, nothing would surprise me.
Do you think being fired due to sexual orientation is acceptable or non-discriminatory?
Equality negates the need for "special rights."
Being fired for that reason alone would be unacceptable.
Special rights are a form of discrimination and it is divisive
[deleted]
Nothing authoritarian about it. Just a fact of life.
Whether someone is for or against it, nothing can be done either way.
So what is the "special right?" Being fired due to sexual orientation is discrimination, regardless if one is straight, gay, bi, ect..
You have yet to define what "special rights" are.
Just what it sounds like - giving one group an extra set of rights. I gave Tess one example, I'll give you another:
How about forcing people to call a man a woman?
You have yet to explain what "special rights" are.
No you didn't. All you gave was a unlikely hypothetical situation.
Who's being forced to do that? I assume you are referring to how transgendered people identify themselves?
It happened:
Who's being forced to do that?
Are you serious?
Here:
It's not equality! We are allowing inequality along with censorship and everything else the left is doing to our society.
You omitted the fact that the 3 black men were NOT loitering. Wonder why?
Just for shits and giggles, WHAT special rights were given in your scenario and WHO doled them out?
Not the way you characterized it.
They weren't? What did they purchase?
WHAT special rights were given in your scenario and WHO doled them out?
The right to loiter, while others may not! I had to even tell you that!
loitering:
stand or wait around idly or without apparent purpose.
Care to tell us the purpose they were at Starbucks Vic?
So you dug & dug but you couldn't find them paying for anything!
When there is a policy about loitering it GOES FOR EVERYBODY - WHITE AND BLACK!
I guess you got it now!
Nope, I know the story, I didn't have to dig for anything.
That's how I know that when the police were called, and the men explained that they were waiting for a business meeting.
That's how I know that you were wrong when you said the police apologized and left. The men were ARRESTED and in fact the link you posted states that in the headline.
That's how I know that they weren't charged with loitering, they were charged with trespass, which was later revoked.
But you go ahead and tell your fantasy the way you want Vic.
Right and they made no purchases! AKA LOITERING!
I posted the definition of loitering. It doesn't include anything about purchases.
Secondly, as I said, they weren't arrested for LOITERING!, they were arrested for trespass.
In the case of Starbucks loitering did involve hanging around without making purchases (at least for white people)
Secondly, as I said, they weren't arrested for LOITERING!, they were arrested for trespass.
You can say it all you want, the police were called because the 3 were given the choice - make a purchase or leave!
How many white people have been arrested for loitering at Starbucks Vic?
You keep saying 3 men when there were actually only 2. Another 'fact' you keep getting wrong about the event.
They were NEVER told to 'make a purchase or leave!. The manager told ONE of them that the rest rooms were for paying customers, she NEVER said they had to make a purchase to stay in the store. 2 minutes after they arrived, the manager called 911. The cops came in and almost immediately called in back up and a Supervisor, claiming that there was a 'group' of black men refusing to leave. The 2 black men never raised their voices and were not antagonistic in any way. The cops stood in the store and waited until back up and the Sup arrived. In the mean time, the Real Estate Agent they were waiting for arrived and HE was irate. He DID raise his voice and WAS antagonistic toward the police. That's when the 2 black men were arrested for trespass.
Oh and BTW, Starbucks isn't the only ones that changed their policy. The Police Dept. changed their policy on arrests for trespass.
That answer would be based upon - How many white people have refused to leave when asked?
They were NEVER told to 'make a purchase or leave!.
"The former Starbucks manager whose telephone call initiated the controversial arrest of two African-American men at her downtown Philadelphia store told 911 , “I have two gentlemen at my cafe that are refusing to make a purchase or leave ,” according to the taped audio of the call released by police Tuesday.
Oh and BTW, Starbucks isn't the only ones that changed their policy. The Police Dept. changed their policy on arrests for trespass.
Yup, SPECIAL RIGHTS for SPECIAL GROUPS!
That answer would be based upon how many managers asked white people to leave after they had been in the store for 2 minutes.
What the manager said on the 911 call is irrelevant since it doesn't prove that she said it to the 2 black men.
So your posit is that Starbucks and the Philly PD changed their policy to give "SPECIAL RIGHTS" ONLY for "SPECIAL GROUPS? Got any evidence for that bullshit?
I'm assuming they asked everyone who violated policy. I also assume the vast majority left when asked.
What the manager said on the 911 call is irrelevant since it doesn't prove that she said it to the 2 black men.
Not to me. To me it is totally relevant.
Got any evidence for that bullshit?
Just the glaring facts you were given.
Yes,
Fox news?
From your own source: "The sponsor, Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener, has argued adamantly that nobody is going to be criminally prosecuted for using the wrong pronoun." It seems this "law" is quite impotent to be actually enforced. Not to mention it can be challenged, especially if someone is actually arrested.
So how much time must pass before a purchase is required to avoid loitering?
Only in your mind.
Why? The Philly PD changed their policy in part because the found the SOME people were making 911 trespass calls based on race.
What evidence do you have that the manager asked them to leave. Hint: NONE.
Is he going to be around to see to it that those laws will not be enforced? If so, why were they enacted? Don't tell me it was to pander to the radical left?
So how much time must pass before a purchase is required to avoid loitering?
It's very simple Gordy, you come in, you order and then you get to enjoy all the amenities of Starbucks. At least it applies to whites that way.
Only in your mind.
You have not only proven that it is a fact, you have demonstrated how things got to be this way.
Clearly NOT IN THIS CASE!
What evidence do you have that the manager asked them to leave. Hint: NONE.
That's kind of an Eric Holder type standard. For instance, suppose that you and I know for a fact (we had Divine knowledge) that in the year 2013 there were only two cases of loitering in the Philadelphia Starbucks. One was a case of black teenagers on a cold winter night just looking to hang out for a bit. The other was a black homeless man during that same cold winter, just looking to put his head down for a bit until somebody asked him to leave. That was it! In that case, no whites were asked to leave all year. Would that constitute discrimination?
That's why rational people don't use the Holder standard!
If it's so fucking clear, PROVE IT Vic. PROVE that the manager didn't call the cops 2 minutes after the black man asked to use the rest room wasn't based on her racial animus.
Nope, it's the Dulay standard. YOU made the allegation that they were asked to leave by the manager. PROVE IT or just admit that you statement was an unfounded assumption posted in a sad attempt to bolster your ideology.
You are the one charging "discrimination" - YOU PROVE IT!
Nope, it's the Dulay standard.
Ya, I know, it's yours, Holders and a lot of other individuals. It is not a fair standard.
YOU made the allegation that they were asked to leave by the manager.
I gave you the proof from the phone call. You chose to ignore it as you always do. I'm not letting you get away with it. This was a clear case of preferential treatment. AKA fuckin social justice!
Irrelevant. If such a law were to be enforced, odds are it would be quickly challenged I the courts.
I suspect stupidity.
Seems like nowadays someone is always trying to pander to a political side, regardless of how absurd a law is. The right does it too.
You didn't answer the question: how much time is allowed?
As I said before, only in your mind.
You said " Clearly NOT IN THIS CASE!" with caps and exclamation point. You made the assertion, you have the burden of proof.
The manager doesn't state that she asked them to either make a purchase or leave. YOU ASSUME as you always do.
Are you seriously claiming that you have the ability to make me do something Vic?
So being arrested for trespass is preferential treatment Vic?
right wing [removed] have no grasp of the equal rights for all americans concept, still. the self righteous indignation by the religious right should be hilarious, once they get their talking points sorted out and word-crafted. how's that lopsided SCOTUS working out so far, [removed ? bwah ha ha ha]
I just became a member of the No Value Club myself. When do I learn the secret hand shake and get my tee shirt?
Your decoder ring is in the mail.
fucking A right those people I named have "no value" to this country...
mass pearl clutching in born again scum madrasa's starts this sunday...
It seems you are referring to several tweets by Dear Leader. But which ones?
Perhaps his juvenile whining about the recent action by The Supreme Court?
Trump blasts DACA decision, asking if people get the impression 'the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?'
Will the fucking whiners shut the hell up now?
It seems you are referring to several tweets by Dear Leader. But which ones?
Perhaps his juvenile whining about the recent action by The Supreme Court?
Trump blasts DACA decision, asking if people get the impression 'the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?'
Legal and political analysts said Trump is making these Supreme Court cases too much about himself, and not enough about the law .
"Maybe it’s the constitution," tweeted Gen. Michael Hayden, a former CIA director.
Trump tweeted shortly after a divided Supreme Court blocked his administration from ending the DACA program that allows nearly 650,000 young, undocumented immigrants – known as "Dreamers" – to live and work in the United States without fear of deportation.
Judicial activism at its worst, rewriting a statute instead of letting congress do it.
sad day for the law.
Sad day...why?
Just because gay people cannot be discriminated against?
seeing gay people sad , makes him happy...
Since you don’t understand the separation of powers or the role of the court relative to creating law, I’m not surprised you have to reduce it such simplistic formulations.
Try and figure out why Congress has been trying to rewrite the statute to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity if the word sex already covered those things.
Well now it does cover those things.
Funny how it is only judicial activism when one does not agree with a ruling.
If they voted against it, would they not be creating law there as well?
That's easy. Because when the GOP is in power in the federal government and states have failed to protect them from discrimination. Now that the SCOTUS has ruled, that will have to change.
Oh course, that won't stop neocons from challenging the ruling at every turn.
The words in the statute didn't change. If the meaning of a law can be trashed to suddenly cover those things, tomorrow it can suddenly be reinterpreted to allow discrimination based on sex, since the language of the statute doesn't actually matter.
You'd think the dangers of a statute book that changes on the whim would be clear to those who hyperventilate about Trump being a dictator, but I've never gotten the sense that progressives see the forest for the trees.
unny how it is only judicial activism when one does not agree with a ruling.
No, that's not true at all. Judicial activism has an actual meaning.
would they not be creating law there as well?
No, they would be leaving the law as Congress passed it, outlawing discrimination on the basis of sex. Again, if Congress thought the sex mean "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" they would not have been trying to rewrite the law to include gender identity and sexual orientation.
Words have meanings. That's why we have separate words for "gender identity" and "sexual orientation." They refer to separate concepts.
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.
I think Taco said it best. They took they law to mean that no one can be discriminated against, as it should be.
There is no special clause that states people can discriminate against LBGQT people.
All have protection under the law.
Which word didn't you understand?
"the GOP is in power in the federal government and states have failed to protect them (lgtbq Americans) from discrimination"
Does that help?
If that wasn't enough, what I believe they meant by that comment was that yes, these laws could have been passed by States (and were by almost every progressive State) or the congress and Senate but conservative Republicans have been blocking those attempts for decades. Conservative Republicans have failed in their duty to protect all their citizens because some are so ideologically brainwashed they don't consider some minorities as worthy of their protection or worthy of equal rights.
Its a word salad.
So the argument is the Republicans have controlled the Federal government since 1964? Does that even need a rebuttal?
Republicans have been blocking those attempts for decade
First,the Republicans were powerless to block an amendment to Title VII as recently as the Obama Presidency. It's amazing how progressives never own their own failures to legislate.
Second, that proves my point. As you said, the law is clear and progressives tried to change it to include sexual orientation and identity. When they couldn't pass a new law in Congress they did an end run around Congress and required the Court to rewrite a law they couldn't the get the support to change. Unless you can point me to the part of the Constitution that says the Court has the power to change laws when Republicans don't do what progressives want, this argument simply proves my point.
Alito makes it as simple as possible to understand " But the question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed. The question is whether Congress did that in 1964"
You seem to be the only one who thinks so.
But when democrats had complete control of Congress and the White House, they never made the same move. You have democrats that have been in office for decades, including Schumer and Pelosi, but now, because Trump is in office, they want to try and claim victory over the Trump admin.
Democtats don't give a rats ass about the LBGTQ community, nor do they care about the black community. White liberals need these groups for one thing and one thing only.....votes.
Once they get those votes, the story starts all over again in 4 years..."The republicans are trying to take away (fill in the blank social program)". Vote for us and we will stop it. Liberal white only use the minority community, not actually want to do anything for them.
You obviously have NO CLUE about the legislative history of ENDA. Get educated.
Pablum.
You are obviously wrong....again. ENDA was introduced in Congress by a Democratic House in 1992, who also had control of the Senate that year. Democrats had control of both houses for eight years since....and nothing. Now that Trump is in office, democrats want to claim republican discrimination by not passing the law.
I've learned over the years that whenever a lib gets triggered over something, or is against something, then whatever it is dems deem bad must be good for the country. Democrats and leftists HATE success in this country. No way they can get their radical "Hate America" agenda through while Trump is in office, which he will be for the next 5 years.
Suck it up, buttercup!!
"Pablum"
Of course, no rebuttal from you. You know every word I typed is correct. You just hate that I called out the democrat agenda.
Delusional again.
You just contradicted your own statement:
That was you right bugs?
Oh and BTW, the 'Equality Act', the precursor to the ENDA was first filed in 1974.
Again, educate yourself about the history of ENDA and in particular the actions taken by the 113th Congress.
Really? Who taught you that bullshit?
The SCOTUS opinion WAS a success for this country. Dems aren't the ones who HATE it.
What 'agenda' is that bugs? Got a bill or a policy in mind or do you just have hyperbole?
No worries. Yesterday was a good day for America.
My characterization of your comment WAS my rebuttal. As I said, it was pablum and unworthy of my time.
No. You still don't get it.
Why bother trying to rebut facts?
Really? Are you claiming that the Senate repealed the right of ONE Senator objecting to cloture stopping a bill in it's tracks?
It's more amazing that conservatives have turned their backs on the concept of personal responsbility and never hold their leadership responsible for anything. It's always someone else's fault.
Oh DO tell me exactly HOW progressives 'required' the 5-4 conservative Court to do anything.
You'll have to point me to the part of Title VII that you allege the Court changed with this opinion first.
Obviously Alito doesn't even know what question was before the court.
Not really. It's not like they found a right in the Constitution that wasn't explicitly there, or worse, invented a scheme to enforce the law, like busing.
All this decision does is hold Congress to its own words. They made it against the law to discriminate based on sex. The logical implication of that is that you can't condemn behavior in a man you would accept in a woman and vice versa.
Sex, gender identity and sexual orientation are all different concepts, which is why we have different words for them. It's why Congress has been trying to rewrite the statute to include those terms because it was clear to Congress that the statue did not cover gender identity and sexual orientation under the plain language of the statute.
By all means, if you can provide any support for the idea that the word sex in 1965 included the concept of sexual orientation, I'd be really interested to see it.
According to The Court, to discriminate based on sexual orientation is to treat people differently based partly on sex and that falls under Title VII.
From the ruling -
The Court acknowledged that Congress in the 60s did not envision extending these protections to LGBT people. Notwithstanding that, the Court held that the protections do logically extend to those people.
This is a process we have been going through as a country from the very beginning. i.e. learning to live up to our stated ideals. From the beginning, we have said "all men are created equal." But we didn't really mean all men or even all people, did we?
Later, we said that no state should deny equal justice to any person. But we didn't really mean "equal" and we didn't really accept that "any person" part, so the courts had to make us live up to those words. We have come to realize that our ideals demand more of us than we were at first prepared to admit.
As Americans, we should be looking for ways to share freedom and justice with all people instead of looking for ways to restrict it.
Except it is the courts job to interpret laws and and to invalidate unconstitutional statutes and that is exactly what they did in this case...
job to interpret laws and and to invalidate unconstitutional statutes
No, they didn't.
Try again.
Well then, the debate's over.
We've agreed the Court has rewritten the statute. Which people are fine with when they agree with the outcome.
Once you confirm that the meaning of a law is divorced from the language used in it's text, then the law itself has no real meaning and can be changed arbitrarily.
we should be looking for ways to share freedom and justice with all people instead of looking for ways to restrict it.
I 100% agree, which is why Courts must follow the law as it's written. Arbitrary readings of the law is the easiest way for freedom and justice to be subverted. See the declaration of independence.
Actually, they DID interpret that the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination against homosexuals and transgender people because of their sex.
What words did they change Sean?
They don't have a clue beyond "I like the policy so its good." It's the extent of their understanding. If the result conforms with the their preference, the Constitution or law at issue is irrelevant.
The basic idea that some people are less than and can be discriminated against should not have to be even brought up to begin with if all men are created equal.
That's not what happened here. Allow me to illustrate with a different example, by way of analogy.
Around here, we have a program where a person can get Diversion (attend a class or something and get your case dismissed) for misdemeanors. The law says Diversion applies "any time" a person is accused of a misdemeanor.
So, a first time DUI is a misdemeanor. Prosecutors and judges didn't want to grant Diversion for DUI, so they said DUIs were not eligible. Upon review, the appeals courts held that DUIs were included even though the law didn't specifically say "including DUIs." It was up to the Legislature to change the law if they didn't like it.
Here, LGBT people are protected against sexual discrimination even though they aren't mentioned in the law specifically. The Court hasn't changed the law. It is simply requiring that it be followed.
If Congress wants to specifically exclude LGBT people from Title VII protection, it could try to do that, but I'm pretty sure that would be wildly bad optics and would also likely be unconstitutional.
False. The EEOC has ruled multiple times in the last decade that LGBT people are covered by Title VII. The Obama Administration agreed, the Trump Administration does not. THAT is why the Congress wanted to codify it by amending Title VII. Now there is no need now, the SCOTUS has ruled.
From a textualist standpoint, (a theory associated with conservatives) it is entirely correct.
So Trump will have to void his regulations against allowing Transgender people from to serve in the military.
Great day for a great decision. Long overdue and sensibly reasoned.
This is a great day for America, a great day for Americans and a great day for the constitution. What many are surprised about was the fact that several conservatives sided with the liberal justices in a 6-3 decision. Many assumed the conservatives would once again try to "conserve" unjust discriminatory laws against minorities as they often have in the past. The conservative position on gays has historically been that of not just indifference but open hostility, as if someone else's sexual orientation was an affront to Christian conservatives and had to be stamped out or their weddings not recognized because they felt they had some conservative religious patent on marriage.
In this case I think it was just beyond obvious that the constitutions protections would apply to lgtbq Americans, there simply was no valid argument to deny them equal protection.
I'm also happy about the decision, but technically, this isn't a constitutional case. The Court was simply interpreting a Congressional law, as written. Congress said it was illegal to discriminate based on sex, so logically you can't fire someone because they are a girl who likes girls when you would keep a guy who likes girls. Same with those identifying as a certain gender or another irrespective of biological or assigned sex. In all cases, the employer is making a decision to discriminate based on sex, which violates Title VII.
Congress could always rewrite the law, but that seems improbable.
“The court’s decision in Bostock [ v. Clayton County, Ga ., one of three cases ruled upon Monday,] has potentially much broader application,” said David Cruz, Newton Professor of Constitutional Law at the USC Gould School of Law and a constitutional law expert focusing on civil rights and equality issues, including equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.
“The Supreme Court might well rule that the Trump administration’s attempt to roll back an Obama-era regulation under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which until Friday interpreted the ACA’s ban on sex discrimination to reach sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination, is contrary to the statute and legally void.
“Although Bostock was grounded in the meaning of a statutory text that proscribes ‘discrimination’ ‘because of’ ‘sex,’ it would not be a stretch to see the Supreme Court rule that the Bostock reasoning shows that the constitutional concept of sex discrimination embraces sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. This would then extend protection against governmental discrimination under the Constitution even where statutes don’t reach ."
While this was upholding and expanding the coverage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, even if the civil rights act was appealed there is enough precedent to believe the constitution would guarantee those rights even though initially they had to be congressionally granted.
A surprising but just decision from this court.
The dissent of Thomas is expected although a reason for that does not exist.
Allito? His only concern is the power of wealth.
Kavanaugh? He shouldn't even be there, flipping burgers at a Wendy's is his better suit.
It's a bit odd that the very people railing against Republicans on the matter of civil rights also support the political party that fought tooth and nail to shut down the Civil Rights Act.
What are you talking about?
The history of the party those like yourself support. You'd be surprised what you can learn.
That history is also the history of the country you support.
I am sure you know that both JFK and LBJ (who fought for the CRA of 1964) were Democrats. That broke off what we now call the Dixiecrats. The Nixon devised The Southern Strategy and the Dixiecrats became Republicans. (Is that the history to which you were referring?)
How is it odd that the party that wrote the civil rights act, proposed it to the house, had the majority of their party vote for it and then have a Democrat President sign it into law would defend it now?
1964 Civil Rights Act
Introduced in the House as H.R. 7152 by Emanuel Celler ( D – NY ) on June 20, 1963
Vote By party and region:
The House of Representatives:
The Senate:
Signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson (D) on July 2, 1964
So a total of 190 Democrats voted for the civil rights act vs 165 Republicans voting for it . You'll also notice that when split into regions, 100% of Southern Republicans voted against it while only 93% of Southern Democrats votes against it. So while few in number in the South at the time, 100% of them were against the civil rights act. Even in the North, a fewer percentage of Republicans voted for it than Democrats by a large margin. It might explain why some Republicans began a "Southern strategy" to appeal to those disaffected Southern Democrats and build a white Christian Republican majority in the south.
"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act . The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are ." - Nixon's political strategist Republican Kevin Phillips
The "Southern Strategy" didn't work overnight, as shown by Southern Democrats continuing to win elections in the South into the early 1980's, but slowly and surely, those angered disaffected former Southern Democrats started voting Republican which is why every single former confederate State is now a bright Red bastion of Republicans today.
Democrats have been supporting the civil rights act since they wrote and passed it in 1964 and it's great that those protections are being extended to our fellow law abiding, tax paying lgtbq Americans. Only the Republican party had been working hard at rolling back those protections, trying to reinstate bans on gay marriage and trying to protect what they see as their right to discriminate under the guise of religious freedom.
i truly wish one of these righties , and there are many around that have and do push that bullshit Dixiecratic shuffle reverse switch about of who and when, pols voted against Civil Rights for African Americans, would respond to your quite contrite laying out of fax that they cannot dispute, or refute, but they can't and won't. Nicely and irrefutably laid out to educate, yet they wish not to learn, only to push forth another bullshit False Narrative.
Yet the right cannot explain why the majority of minorities are democrats. The old fall back is ''free stuff''...
I've never received my ''free stuff'' please forward it ASAP since I've been waiting nearly 79 years for it.
It's pointed out on this forum that the democratic senator, Robert Byrd was once a member of the KKK. Yet, they do not acknowledge two racists Republican senators, Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.
If one is not familiar with those two a little research is in order.
Great job explaining it -- and such great detail.
The logic in the ruling really isn't that hard to follow. The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based upon a few factors, one being sex. Firing someone who is gay because they are interested in the same sex is firing them because of the sex of their partner(s), thus violating the Civil Rights Act in that they were fired based upon the sex of an individual. They are being discriminated against because of the sex of their partner, so even if you aren't violating the employee's civil rights directly, you are doing it indirectly by firing them because of the sex of the person they go home to.